for an explanation. For your convenience, I'm copying/pasting
the relevant part of that web page:

Haldane's assumption was that it would take 300 generations to
fix a single gene from initial mutation to ubiquity in a
population. While one can debate this figure, it is not the main
source of the Dilemma. This comes from the invalid assumptions
that only one gene can be fixed at a time and that no other
changes can accumulate until the ongoing one is fixed. That's why
multiplying the number of generations per fixation by the number
of total DNA differences makes no sense.

I noticed another problem with computer simulations for
Haldane's dilemma. Some simulations assume just one parent
because that's easier to program.... However, it's clear that
evolution works much faster with two parents (that way good
mutations can meet to produce even better offspring).

The source of the shrinking sun claim is given as a 1974 book
by Morris, but the response indicates that the claim stemmed from
a report written in 1980. While Morris might be known by some for
his smoke and mirrors, most would not ascribe future-telling to
him as well.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

I recently debated
some creationists/ID'ers on a web forum and came across the
following argument for which I had no answer:

DNA is a code, all codes are intelligently designed, therefore
life was intelligently designed.

I could find no complete refutation of this argument, and was
curios of your thoughts on the matter. Obviously, the statement
"all codes are intelligently desinged" has no proof, yet I could
find no evidence of a complex code that was not intelligently
designed. In any event, thanks for maintaining such a great,
useful site!

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

DNA is not a code
in the sense of human-designed codes. DNA translates into only
twenty different amino acids, and the sequence of amino acids is
not a symbolic representation, but the actual physical structure
to accomplish whatever function. See CB180 regarding the genetic code as
a language.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

In the January
Feedback, Greg Lanning wrote: "Darwinists go out of their way to
debunk belief in God (this is the final thrust of the attacks on
Berlinski, Bethe, Dembski etc.) but with that debunking must go a
debunking of moral restraints tied to belief in God." In this, he
may be committing the same logical fallacy he is pointing out:
Confusing the necessary with the sufficient. Does he mean that
belief in God is necessary for moral restraint? Or only that it
is sufficient? And if it is only sufficient, then there must be
another source of moral restraint, perhaps one that is not
susceptible to being destroyed by the discovery of a scientific
truth.

1. I was browsing your feedback and found one of your guys
(Gary Hurd) taking a naive falsificationist view of science,
whereby scientific theories cannot be proven but can be
disproven (some say that this is what separates science from
pseudoscience). Now, I don't do philosophy of science, but I
think I know enough to inform you that this is a discredited view
(or at least as discredited as a view can be when it's
philosophical in nature). I take it that these days phil science
experts don't go in for the proving or the
disproving of theories at the hands of observation -- this
is due to lots of worries about the relationship between theory
and observation raised by Quine, Putnam, and others. Of course,
some scientific theories are better than others, and this has a
lot to do with how they stand with respect to observables, but
the story is more complicated than that.

In any case, I imagine everyone would agree that there's
something wrong with a scientific theory that has no
observational implications at all. And that there's something
wrong with theorists who endlessly tack on ad hoc hypotheses
instead of revising their theory. And that might be all you need
to say.

2. Also Troy Britain used "counterfactual" as though it meant
"false". But a counterfactual statement is a statement that
discusses alternate ways the world might have gone -- e.g., "If I
hadn't scored that goal, my team would have lost" and "If Gore or
Kerry had won, America's foreign policy wouldn't be so
foolish".

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

OK, I did some
research in various dictionaries, thesauri, and of course the net
and have learned that although "counterfactual" is indeed a
synonym for "false" (which is how I intended it), meaning
literally "counter to the facts", it also seems to be a term of
art used variously by philosophers,
historians and psychologists.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

Just want to say,
thank God (err..) for talkorigins, keep up the excellent work. I
imagine you get a lot of hatemail from crackpots, but there are
sane people out there (perhaps, we hope, we are even the silent
majority?) and your hard work is really appreciated, and wholly
necessary and important.

In the paragraph "The development of Evolutionary Biology" he
writes: "[...] Mendel mailed his paper to Darwin, but Darwin
never opened it."

Because I have seen this factoid being used by some
creationists to "discredit" Darwin (often refering to mr. Colby's
article) I tried to find a relevant source to this claim.
Apparantly, the claim that Darwin owned an unopened copy of
Mendel's paper is exaggerated. As described in a
letter by Andrew
Sclater on the matter,
this "unopened copy of Mendels' paper" is actually a part of a
book which only mentions Mendel's studies.
Mr. Sclater has also
published his findings
but unfortunately, I was unable to secure information beyond the
abstract of this article.

It seems that Charles Darwin never owned a copy of Mendel's
paper.

I think this information might be useful to pre-empt the next
creationist who thinks this factoid will "utterly discredit"
Darwin.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

Such myths find
their way into the scientific background, and are repeated from
text to text without anyone checking. A similar issue arises with
Darwin supposedly being asked by Marx for permission to dedicate
Das Kapital to him.

Darwin had, I recall, read a discussion of Mendel's works in
brief, in a review of Continental biology, but which badly
mangled it. However, I don't have the refs to hand right now.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

Thank you for the
very entertaining and informative site. One more argument that
can be made against the literal interpretation of the
Judeo-Christian flood myth is that it is clearly derivative. The
Noah story closely parallels that of Utnapishtim which is related
in the Epic of Gilgamesh, a written account of
Sumerian/Babylonian origin that is proven to pre-date
Genesis.

And the Gilgamesh
Tablet XI adapted the earlier story of Atrahasis. Internal
evidence indicates that Atrahasis Tablet III was probably
original, it clearly predates the Epic of Gilgamesh. You might
enjoy reading:

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

Creationist Claim
CE101 concerns Moon dust and how much would have accumulated by
meteoritic dust. Could you also comment on the claim that dust
derived from continual thermal expansion and shrinking of surface
moon rocks for millions of years would have given rise to a layer
several miles thick - John MacArthur in his "Battle for the
Beginning" radio series.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

I have not heard
that claim before. One problem with it is that dirt is a pretty
good thermal insulator. Sun-heated sand on a beach that is too
hot for bare feet is cool enough just an inch lower. I would not
expect the thermal expansion and shrinking to affect the moon
rocks more than a foot deep, if that far.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

Do you guys
smuggle mexicans like some of your staff to work for you guys? As
far as I'm concerned Hovind is a lot smarter than you comics, he
actually shows some good amount of evidence, isn't a loser and
makes sites to try to get poeple to hate on other people over the
internet, geesh what are you children? I got a good joke for you
guys.

Person 1: Well, how do creationists know that the Big Bang
isn't true? Person 2: Tell me, Matt. If you put a bomb in your
room, do you think setting it off would make it clean or dirty?
1) That's easy. A bomb would cause a huge mess. I would have
clothes and toys all over the place. Mom wouldn't be happy about
that at all. 2) Well, you can think of the Big Bang kind of like
a big bomb. Evolutionists think that when this explosion happened
things got more organized or straightened up instead of getting
more disorganized or messy. 1) That sure doesn't make any sense.
Another way we know evolution isn't true is to look at our
so-called relatives, the monkeys. Man and animals do have many
things in common, two eyes, two ears, and the way we breathe, for
example. But if you compare DNA, the instructions inside our body
that tell us how to look, of monkeys and men, there are some big
differences. For the DNA of a monkey to accidentally change to
the DNA of a man would be like saying I accidentally jumped over
the Grand Canyon So big bang created everything that looks so
beatiful on Earth? I wonder how Earth would look after an atomic
bomb, maybe we might get more beautiful. Your logic is sad.

i'm a high school
student, and in one of my science courses we are disgussing
scientic evolution. i dont really believe in this. i see it as
more of the religious view on this topic. i believe in that god
created man and women. the whole bible theory is whats my
viewpoint.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

I have seen the
end of the earth. I have been to the earth's very peak and I will
tell you this, it is not flat! The very fact that you would
believe in something so incredibly false forces me to ask the
question of whether the earth even exists?... How can you not
believe in something you live on. That's like a hippopatumus not
believing in water, or an ant not believing in an ant hill. You,
sir, are an IDIOT!

One question that I have is: What exactly is intelligent
design theory? I say theory very loosely. Other than saying
complex life had to have behind its existence a designer. Exactly
what is the theory?

1. Did the intelligent entity, which I will arbitrarily call
God, interact with phyiscal world a billion years ago, a million
years ago, last night? 2. Is God involved with every conceptions
or cell splitting?

Science assumes that the physical universe is governed by
rules. Does ID say that it isn't?

Other questions:

1. How can you prove or disprove a God behind the creation of
life. 2. Why does it matter so much to ID proponents that
evolution of life occurs?

My religious says God created the universe twenty years ago on
January 22, 1985. He set up the physical universe in that one
moment. Our memories for before then were simply implants.

My question is: is my religious belief a scientific
theory?

It can not be proved or disproved. It could actually be true.
It would violation the scientific assumption the the physical
universe follows rules that have existed for billions of years.
The universe is only 20 years old, after all.

My cousin has another religion that split off from mine. His
religious belief is same as mine, except he believes the universe
is actually 40 years old.

Which of our "theories" is right? Can they be proved or
disproved?

My points are:

1. Science makes certain assumptions about the universe
following rules. 2. Science observes and proposes theories. Then
scientist try to prove the theories wrong using critical
thinking, the scientific method, and intelligual honesty. 3. ID
is not science. It is not honest. And it wants people not to use
their critical thinking skills. 4. ID could very well be true.
However, just like my religion and my cousin's religion, ID is a
metaphysical, religious belief that can not be proved or
disproved. 5. Science is not trying to answer the metaphysical
question about God. It does not have to. God can exist or not. He
could have intervened at any point in time and we can not prove
or disprove it. This is not sciences role and should not be. 6.
If ID gets into science classes it is the failure of the boards
to be intellectually honest. 7. Does it bother anyone that
people, who push ID and probably think of themselves as followers
of God, are so intellectually dishonest?

Hi. I was curious
if there are any recent observations of macroevolution, by that I
mean a major change of an organism from one form to another. Why
is it that we don't see say, a fruitfly turn into a bird these
days? Is it because changes that come are too gradual and slow
for the speculation to see complete change? If this is a matter
of the environmental conditions, has there been any observation
of evolution in the laboratories? What are some reasones that
macroevolution appear so unnoticeable?

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

We do not see
fruit flies turning into birds today because that sort of thing
never has or will happen. You were probably just being a bit
facetious (something we can't always be sure about around here),
but just to be clear, birds did not evolve from flies or any
other insects or arthropods.

Macroevolution on the scale that it is directly observable
within a human life span would be fruit flies turning into a
slightly different species of fruit flies, and this has
been observed.

So, yes, macroevolution on a larger scale (the origin of new
genera or families etc.) happens far too slowly to be directly
observed. It is roughly analogous to the movement of continental
plates. We can see small movements on various fault-lines (inches
to feet during earthquakes), but to see continents moving
hundreds of miles apart would take far, far, longer than a human
life span.

However even though neither large scale macroevolution nor
large scale continental movements can be observed directly
(science doesn't require direct observation) they both
leave lots of indirect evidence which can be observed.

If evolution (say from a dinosaur into a bird) were to take
place in a manner your question suggests (directly observable
within a human lifetime), this would violate everything we
understand about how evolution operates. In other words what many
antievolutionists demand as evidence for evolution is
something which evolutionary theory says should not happen.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

This is my first
time on any blog. Been on the net for 15 years. I found PT after
Cobb County.I wanted to see exactly how creationists had
convinced so many people to support religion vs science, I see
how Demski,Gish etc.are relentless and convincing.I majored in
anthropology 25 years ago,and agree with to. My
question(finally):Why are there no rebuttals/agreement in the
IdeasID blog today?

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

I am strongly
apposed to the fact that you are forsing ebolution upon people! I
come from the Christian faith, and do you not think that we dont
have proof too? Cause we do! Noah's ark... you say is a story,
well there has been traces of the ark found! Also, we have much
more proof of fact. You have only science, we have faith...

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

Jason Gastrich
apparently can't get enough traffic based upon people knowing
that they are headed to his site and has to rely upon
parasitizing the traffic headed for the TalkOrigins Archive. I
think this is well understood by everyone. I'm not sure what
action should be taken, other than pointing this out.

The TalkOrigins Archive Foundation is a non-profit
organization whose purpose is to support the TalkOrigins Archive.
We are waiting for a ruling from the IRS on tax-exempt status.
Once we have that ruling, we will set up donation buttons to
allow people to support the archive.

It is from "New Nation: Bangladesh's Independent News Source."
The writing is in broken English and seems to make references to
the Q'ran. It includes a realistic looking photos of a giant
skeleton being excavated by two tiny figures. It bears a very
recent date (4/22/04) and claims the photo was taken from a
helicopter before the Saudi government restricted the area. The
text of the story is below:

Giant human skeleton found in Saudi Arabia By Saalim Alvi from
Riyadh Apr 22, 2004, 12:04 Recently gas exploration is going in
the desert of south east region of Saudi Arabia. This desert
region is called Empty Quarter, which means in Arabic "RAB - UL
-KHAALEE"; this body has been found by ARAMCO exploration team.
This proves what Allah SWT said in QURAN about the people of AAD
nation and HOOD nation.

They were so tall, wide and very power full that they were
able to pull out big trees just with the one hand. But what
happen after when they become misguided and disobeys Allah SWT,
Allah SWT destroyed the whole nation. ULEMA KIRAM of Saudi Arabia
believes that this body belongs to AAD nation.

Saudi military took over this whole area. And nobody is
allowed to go in this region except Saudi ARAMCO personnel's.
Saudi government has kept it very secret but some military
helicopters took pictures from air. And one of them he runs on
internet here in Saudi Arabia.

Not only is there the evidence that Marcel cites concerning
phylogenetic inference of sequence data, but the inference that
microsporidia are early branching eukaryotes rests on the
assumptions that (1) they do not possess mitochondria; and (2)
mutation rates are similiar between microsproridia and other
eukaryotes. Neither of these assumptions are safe.

Williams et al (2002) use immuno-microscopic methods and more
appropriate phylogenetic inference methods to demonstrate that
the microsporidian Trachipleistophora hominis contains an
organelle of mitochondrial origin and that when the more rapid
rates of mutation in the microsporidia are accounted for they
should be placed in the eukaryotic crown rather than at the
base.

One reason why taxa can be erroneously placed as an early
branch in a tree is because they have higher mutation rates than
other taxa, or they could be said to be evolving more quickly.
(This is known as "long branch attraction" where the fastest
evolving taxa clearly produce the most change, the most change =
the longest branch, and the longest branches get grouped at the
base of phylogenetic trees) These data are consitent with a group
that has adapted from functioning in an aerobic environment to
functioning in an anaerobic one in a relatively short period of
time and have become parasitic. This also explains why
mitochondrial HSP70 genes, for instance, are found in this group.
The fact that the microsporidia parasitise other eukaryotes
should have perhaps suggested to us earlier that they were
unlikely to have been the earliest branch in the eukaryotic
tree.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

Wanted to
communicate to you how grateful I am that your website exists.
Your site provides professional and exhaustive information for
people with objective curiosity regarding evolution. There is
such a massive quantity of disinformation out there being spread
on the net and in churches. And, even though it's doubtful that
this site could impact the thoughts of people that would claim an
international satanic conspiracy has spawned evolution, there are
many that still have not made up their minds.

And would also like to encourage you guys to 'take no
prisoners' when rebutting rude/dishonest/disreputable critics.
Afterall, we live in a society that seems to believe that an
accusation that is not addressed vehemently is an accusation that
'must' be true.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

Love the site,
thanks alot, great work, you know, all that good stuff.

Recently came across a website; truthorigins or something like
htat. I haven't had time to read his articles, but he seems to
counter many of the articles here. Do you know where I could view
some rebuttal?

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

Some of the
articles here do incorporate responses to material hosted on the
"TrueOrigins" site. It is a commonplace to find articles here
that specifically take note of antievolutionist responses,
providing links to critical articles and the like.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

Hi,

In your generally great (if slightly advanced) FAQ page
discussing 'progress in evolution', http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html
the page's author John Wilkins writes: "The current view is best
summed up by a phrase of Gould's - evolution is a bush, not a
tree."

Perhaps this is a slip of editing? I expect it should read "is
a bush, not a LADDER", in the context of the paragraph and of
Gould's general thought (in which I've read significantly). And
between a bush and a tree I can't imagine significant differences
pertinent to the metaphor.

No, Gould's point
was that evolution is not neat. Certainly evolution is not a
ladder, but this is a different point to be made. The
representations of evolution sometimes bias the ways that
scientists conceive of the way evolution works. Phylogenetic
diagrams are sparse and neat - but we have every reason to expect
that evolution, as with the rest of life, is not.

Topologically, a bush is a tree, and there is no
qualitative difference between them, but if you only represent a
few twigs of the bush, it is easy to imply that evolution was
progressing to some final conclusion in a group of organisms.

Rather than the word "nucleotides," I believe the author meant
to use the word "nuclides." There's a significant difference
between the two and the former does not apply here. It can be an
easy mistake to make, but it should be changed in order to be
accurate.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

An acquaintance of
mine from England mailed me a copy of American Genesis by Jeffrey
Goodman. I must admit I am only a fifth of the way through it. He
makes some fantastic claims that seem now to be supported by
finds in the Savannah River basin. Does the scientific community
dismiss his contention that man may have evolved in southern
California and migrated westward across the Bering
landbridge?

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

Goodman's work
could fairly be characterized as crackpottery or worse. He gets
important facts wrong, uses old and discredited dates, ignores
contrary evidence, and bases at least part of his findings on
psychic "research." One artifact key to his conclusion, the
Flagstaff stone, has markings similar to stones from Cro-Magnon
sites, but Goodman neglects to tell that it was engraved
after it was dug from the ground. For an extensive review,
see Kenneth Feder, 1983, "American Disingenuous: Goodman's
American Genesis -- A new chapter in cult archaeology",
Skeptical Inquirer 7(4): 36-47.

All the evidence still points clearly to humanity originating
in Africa.

Creationists often
get criticized for calling evolution "Darwinism", and are told no
one calls it that, but I've seen some biologists using the term
as well. I read the What Is
Darwinism FAQ, but I'm afraid I'm not seeing the distinction
between evolution and Darwinism. My best guess is that Darwinism
is that category of evolutionary thought that holds natural
selection as the dominant force in evolution, but I'm probably
wrong. Could someone clear this up?

In the Anti-Darwinism FAQ I outline the
various ideas that go by that name. In general, this, from that
FAQ, is the case:

What Darwinism actually is, is of course at issue. It is a
term that has many different meanings, depending on the field in
which it is being discussed. In, say, artificial life research,
Darwinism tends to mean natural selection (in the form of what
are called "genetic algorithms"). In systematics it means the
reconstruction of ancestral forms and historical sequences of
species. In bacteriological research it means the evolution of
drug-resistant strains by selection. In organismic biology it
means the evolution of new forms of life. In genetics it means
the so-called "central dogma" of the inability of information
about the state of the body to be reverse transcribed back into
the genes, because that view was first proposed by an
arch-Darwinian, August Weismann, in the 1880s. And in fact, all
of these are just tendencies that vary according to where the
researchers are, who you are reading, and the period in which
those people lived. "Darwinism" according to Wallace in 1890 is
very different to Darwinism according to Stephen Jay Gould or
Richard Dawkins.

Elsewhere, in Darwin's
Precursors and Influences FAQ I try to show that there are
seven theoretical positions closely allied to Darwin's own that
get called that. Most of the time, though, when someone does use
the term in science, they tend to mean evolution by selection,
yes. It is confusing because that is often not what Darwin
meant.

Scientists aren't generally very good at tracing conceptual
movements in history - it's not their field, after all. So they
use terms to mark out Uses and Thems. Don't take it as meaning
that the ideas actually refer to solid positions.

You are a moron,
the geological collum was deposited rapidly and there is
petrified trees connecting the layers right side up and upside
down. These trees prove the layers were formed rapidly, because
the trees conect them together. mabe the roots grew during the
flood whitch water level reached above the highest mountian. How
is oil and coal made? Roots growing 7000 feet down doesnt
dissprove the the rapid formation, mabe during the flood seeds
were buried. These layers are not diffrent ages, and how come
there is no erosion marks between the layers. I did erosion
controll, and underground construction. I am not going to fall
for your false science. The geological collum is based on
circular reasoning. Your carbon dating is assumed constant, and
that is unknown. carbon date a live snail and see what you get
25,000 years.Plus how many super novas do we have, not millions
of years worth. The mammonths were froze rapidly (small ice
crystals in blood) You would need -300 deg below to freeze the
mammoths with unroted food in there stomach, the inside would rot
because of their stomach acid hello. There is no proof of
anything being consistant, if there was more observations would
favor the earth as under 10,00 years old. Go to drdino.com and
learn real science.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

First off standard
uniformitarian geology does not deny that the rapid deposition of
individual layers of sediment (as during annual flooding) can
occur. Therefore the existence of fossil trees passing through
several lays of rock does not pose a problem.

Creationists, by conflating individual layers of rock with
geologic time periods and mischaracterizing uniformitarianism (as
denying rapid geological processes), have created a strawman.

There is evidence of erosion between many layers of rocks and
geologists call these disconformities. Any decent entry level geology
textbook will tell you all about them, and even Flood geologists
like Steve Austin of the ICR
admits that such features exist, for example in the Grand
Canyon (though he claims that the erosion between layers took
place rapidly during the Flood of Noah).

That the geologic column is based on circular reasoning is a
common creationist canard that is easily refuted once one learns
a little about geology and the history of geology.

The claim usually goes something like this: the fossils are
used to date and order the rock layers in the geologic column and
then order of rock layers in the geologic column is used to date
and order the fossils. This is usually accompanied by the claim
that ultimately the order of the fossils is somehow based on the assumption of
evolution.

Finally as for flash frozen mammoths I could argue with you or
point you to several things on the Archive which refute
creationists claims about them, but I think I will let you argue
with the atheistic evolutionists over at Answers in Genesis who
say that this is one of the arguments
that creationists should NOT use.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

The 29 Evidences
for Macroevolution atticle states that the universal
gravitational constant has been determined to only three decimal
places. This may cause some confusion. It is true that the
constant has been determined to three places to the right of the
decimal point in scientific notation. However, it would be more
clear to say that it has been determined to four significant
digits. According to NIST, the value of the universal
gravitationa constant is 6.6742E-11 (m^3)/(kg*s^2) with an
uncertainty of 0.0010E-11 (m^3)/(kg*s^2).

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

Thanks for the
update. As should be clear from the two quotes I give (Kestenbaum
1998; Quinn 2000) in the section
discussing the universal theory of gravity, when I wrote that
the relative uncertainty was about three significant digits. I
suppose in the intervening time NIST has increased the
recommended precision. I will make a note to that effect.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

The whole theory
of Evolution makes no sense to me whatsoever. The whole thing
about us evolving by chance isn't possible, is it? I mean, come
on, I believe we all have a purpose, and because we have a
purpose we are not alive by chance.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

No, you're right;
the idea of life evolving by chance alone isn't credible. But
that isn't the "whole theory of evolution" (no need to capitalize
the word evolution by the way). Rather it is one of the most
common misconceptions about evolution.

Yes, "chance" processes play a part in evolution, but only a
part. For example natural selection, a primary mechanism driving
evolution, is a non-chance processes.

As for "purpose", as I think you mean it, this is a
philosophical and/or theological concept that science does not
deal with. This being the case evolutionary theory says nothing
about whether or not we as a species, or as individuals, have any
purpose in the philosophical sense.

It is true that some individuals may draw philosophical
inferences from scientific theories (including evolution) but
they are just that, philosophical inferences, and are
not part of science itself.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

If you believe in
evolution, you are wrong. Let me give you a reason why. 1)Where
you there? NO! If you werent there, than how could you know that
the earth was "formed" millions of years ago. Who will you
believe? An all knowing God who was there, or a man who wasnt
there and dosent know it all.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

This tired old
argument keeps surfacing. In case anyone needed to see this,
let's put it into perspective. Were you present at the last
eruption of Mount Mazama? No? Do you doubt it happened? There's a
rather large, hollowed-out mountain filled with water in Oregon,
called Crater Lake. The whole region is covered in pumice left
over from the explosion. It lies along a line of well-known
volcanic activity, stretching from South America to Alaska. In
short, we see evidence of the eruption all over- even if no one
witnessed it. The same is true of evolution- except we have
rather a lot more evidence for evolution, including fossils,
nested hierarchies, genetic similarities. By your reasoning, if
no one witnesses a murder, no one can ever be convicted of the
crime.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

I recently
attended a debate on the U of Ill. campus between Drs. Ross and
Rana from "Reasons to Believe" and 2 U of I instructors. To the
best of my knowledge, Dr. Ross is respected as an astronomer
(No...I don't "buy" his argument of "complex equation = God", but
in general I'd expect him to "stick" to science). I was therefore
astounded to hear Dr. Rana say "there were no complex,
multicelluar organisms prior to the Cambrian". You can't SAY that
in front of professional geologists! (at least you shouldn't :)
The Ediacaran Period, which precedes the Cambrian, is known for
its fauna of "multicelluar, complex organisms"(up to 2 meters in
size!). It's just what one might expect prior to the evolution of
a diverse, hard-shell Cambrian fauna! I didn't jump up and
correct him (wish I had :), but I told (for the nth time) my
classroom and web students to check out the "facts" that they
hear/read (I hear the "Moon dust" and "Shrinking Sun" fairly
often). Anyway... thanks for all your work on this site to
counter this type of nonsense!

I'm an undergrad.
student moving towards grad. study in physics. I'm a Christian
(actually very confused recently), but also think Evolution + Old
Earth is correct. It kinda bothers me when people are trying to
"redesign/misuse" a scientific theory in order to fit a belief
(ex. speed of light, second law of TD, Magnetic field of Earth,
to name a few). I must say "Great Work Guys!" to everyone involve
in replying and maintaining this Talk Origin website.

One thing I worry thought is that how long will this debate
last? It must be very very tired seeing so many feedbacks
rejecting evolution and old earth etc, while this debate will not
have an end anytime soon. I can sense there'll be generations
after generations of people rejecting the idea of evolution and
an old earth. What kind of discovery or scientific development
can help put a solid end to this debate?

None. This is not
a scientific debate and no amount of scientific work will serve
to dissuade creationists or convince them that evolution is a
fact and that the theory of evolution is the best explanation of
that fact.

This is not even a theological debate. It is, in the
end, a political and social movement that drives the resurgence
of creationism. And while we do not like it, creationism is
likely to remain a "live" belief in western and non-western
society for a very long time to come, as most of the reasons
people have for being of a particular kind of anti-science
tradition are in no way related to scientific reasons.

But that is not the issue. Most creationism will disappear
when good education is given to children. It is no accident that
they seek to control the teaching of children - this is the most
effective way to keep the beliefs alive. So too do other
ideologies; not only the Marxist-Leninists of yore, but the
present conservatives, and before them, the social democrats. So
as long as we permit creationism, including intelligent design
creationism, to dominate educational standards and policies, it
will continue to be a problem for science and society in
general.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

Thank you for this
site. I was raised by fundamental Baptists and this particular
issue (creationism vs. evolution) was my father's passion. He
subscribes to the Ex Nihilo magazine and has dozens of videos
concerning this topic. One year for our family vacation he
actually took us to the Word of Life campus in upstate New York
for a Creationism conference/seminar where they held workshops
and discussions. My brother and I got to meet Ken Ham and we went
swimming with his kids while my father talked to him. So in other
words, I've been fairly brainwashed. We were forced to go to a
Baptist high school where they taught creationism and I have
always had doubts/questions about evolution because of what we
were taught. Your site specifically addressed every "proof" they
ever offered us and debunked them thoroughly, rationally and
scientifically and I cannot thank you enough for that. I've
always wanted to believe in evolution but could never let go of
those nagging doubts from the past...until now. I hope that one
day my father will be able to read the information presented on
your site and admit that maybe he was wrong but I doubt it. I
have higher hopes for my brother, though, and will send him the
link. Thank you again and please continue the good fight because
as long as people like my father exist I fear the fight is long
from being over.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

Thank you very
much for the response. I appreciate it. First of all, I have to
say I don't think your blind people or the spawn of Satan by any
means. I believe you are special becuse God made you that way,
and he has a plan for you whether you like it or not. But anyway,
thank you for the response, I would have preferred a bit of a
less hostile response. But ya can't win them all. Anyway, I
apologize for confusing macro and micro evolution. Simple mistake
of lettering. But I only have one more question for you, and I
know I'm going to receive some negativety on this one ;). But if
your so sure that evolution is true.... how come you haven't
answered Dr. Hovind's challenge for the $250 000? I mean it seems
like it would be and easy way to make money if I was against him
I mean. But anyway I once again thank you for the response. But I
do think you should tone down on your responses to people,
insulting them really isn't going to win them over to your views.
But you do things your way. I once again pray for you, and thanks
again. GOD BLESS Matthew

So, all in good cheer, I have a suggestion: You try to answer
Hovind's phoney challenge using the TalkOrigins archive as your
main resource. You must promise not to tell him that you are
actually a creationist, or the source of your information.

Let us know when you are rich (and don't forget to tip).

From:

Troy Britain

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

Sorry for any
offence but sometimes the feedback we receive evokes sarcasm. We
get letter after letter that liberally mixes near complete
ignorance of the subject of evolution with equal amounts of
certitude that evolution is false. Patience wears thin.

Case in point, and no further offence intended, but I can't
help but doubt that your confusion about micro &
macroevolution (and variation) is limited only to spelling.
However I won't press the issue.

As far God's plan goes ("whether you like it or not"), I told
you before that some of the Talk.Origins Archive volunteers are
Christians (or other sorts of theists) who already believe that
there is a God and that he has a plan. As for those who are
agnostics or atheists, they don't accept your premise to begin
with.

Imagine how you would react to a Muslim writing you and
telling you that "Allah is God and Mohammed is his one true
prophet whether you like it or not." Your comments have
exactly the same impact on agnostics and atheists as a Muslim's
would have on you, i.e., not much.

Now back on topic.

Hovind's offer is
disingenuous. We try and explain this to people on a regular
basis and we even have an article
explaining why we consider it such, but it doesn't seem to be
getting through. Let me see if I can present a rough analogy that
might make it easier for some of our (antievolutionist) readers
to comprehend.

Imagine if some antitheist (not atheist, antitheist)
put out a challenge to Christians to prove that Christianity is
true and that if anyone can do this he will pay them a quarter of
a million dollars.

As part of your evidence for the truth of Christianity he says
he wants to see proof of the following:

Reincarnation.

That the earth rests on the back of a giant turtle.

That the way one gets to heaven is by being a good
person.

That our ancestors are really appeased by the burning of
offerings.

That Christians are not sinners.

The conditions are that he will personally pick a panel of
unidentified philosophers who will review your evidence and he
will let you know if you convinced them or not.

Sound reasonable to you?

"Wait", you're no doubt saying, "those things he wants
evidence for are either not part of Christianity or they are
misunderstandings about Christianity", and you are right about
that. But just as our fictional antitheist mixes different
religions and misunderstandings of Christianity in his challenge,
the non-fictional "Dr."
Hovind mixes different scientific theories and misunderstands of
evolutionary theory into his challenge. Why is this sort of thing
a problem for the antitheist and not Hovind?

You might also have objected to the antitheist getting to
hand-pick the judges who will decide whether you've met the
challenge, and you'd be right to. But if you think that it is
unfair for our fictional antitheist to do this then why is it OK
for the non-fictional antievolutionist Hovind to do the same
thing with his challenge?

(Note: these objections do not exhaust the problems with
Hovind's offer.)

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

I've just spent
the last 2 hours reading through the articles on this site and I
must say it has been fascinating. Reading this site has shown to
me how little people actually know about evolution. Thus making
it easy for the creationism scientists (who never actually try to
prove their own theories, rather they just try to disprove
others) to prey on the ignorant to convince them to think that
evolution is some lie perpetrated by the scientific community.

Fantastic job, the ammount of information on the site is
staggering, I had not even heard many of the arguments listed on
the site but now if I ever do I know how to thouroughly debunk
them. Keep up the good work.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

In a response by
Troy Britain, he mentioned Kent Hovinds $250,000 offer not being
valid. Think about it, if someone had $250,000 to spend on
something so controversial like PROVING evolution, he would pay
it IF, and that's a big IF, there was proof. By proof, he doesn't
mean a bunch of HOT AIR like your web site information, he means
proof. If someone would pay $250,000 for proof that rain comes
from rain clouds or the earth is round or fire burns or animals
reproduce only after their own kind or if a tree falls in a
forest and no one's there to hear it-would it make a sound?, then
I think somebody just won 250,000. I don't believe you people are
scared as the person who sent the comment mentioned, you're just
ignorant. If you only knew how ridiculous the whole evolution
concept sounded. If there was proof, then you wouldn't see
experts in fields pertaining to evolution rethinking their views.
What a disturbing, but hilarious website. "The fear of the Lord
is the beginning of wisdom."

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

Feedback response
regarding Kent Hovind's $250,000 offer, number: 25,383,054,067 (I
made up the number, but it feels about right).

First, "proof" in the absolute and final sense is not part of
science. All conclusions in science are provisional, leaving the
door open for the possibility of new data that might change our
views in the future. Evidence is what one looks for in science,
not proof.

Second, regarding the evidence in the Archive being
referred to as "HOT AIR", that is really easy to assert but far
more difficult to demonstrate.

Here's a challenge for you Mr. Borders, why don't you
demonstrate, through force of argument, that something in the
Archive either makes a fact claim that is incorrect, or has a
logical argument that does not follow.

Thirdly, in response to our supposed ignorance, some of the
people who have contributed to the Archive are "experts in
fields pertaining to evolution". And while scientists rethink
their views all the time (because of more and better
information), the consensus hasn't changed regarding the fact of
evolution for about one hundred and forty years.

Have ideas about the relative importance of various
mechanisms, rates, and other details changed, yes. Has confidence
that evolution has occurred diminished, no. Quite the contrary,
it has only increased with the addition of more and better
information.

That evolution is a theory in crisis, is being questioned by
more and more scientists, and on the verge of collapse is an
antievolutionist fantasy that has been ongoing practically since
the day after Darwin published the Origin of Species.

Oh yeah, for the zillionth time Hovind's offer is bunk. The
fix is in. No one, no matter what evidence they presented to
Hovind could possibly win. He has set up a strawman caricature of
evolutionary theory that he want people to "prove" and he gets to
hand-pick who will decide if they've done it or not.

You cannot be both sane and well educated and disbelieve in
evolution. The evidence is so strong that any sane, educated
person has got to believe in evolution. - Dawkins

to pick a jury to judge the scientific merit of
creationism?

No? Then why should we have any confidence that Hovind who
frequently makes (inaccurate) statements like this:

Evolution is positively anti-science. Science deals with
things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable and
evolution has none of those qualities. To call evolution
"science" Is to confuse fairy tales with facts. -
Hovind

I am puzzled that
most anti-evolutionists attack the concept of evolution because
it is “only” a theory, not a fact. Facts themselves
are simple ideas of limited use. If I venture outside on a winter
day, I may observe that my exposed skin develops bumps and my
body begins to shiver. I deduce the fact that it is cold outside.
Any animal with a nervous system could deduce the same fact,
although the information is valid only right here and right now.

On the other hand, we have theories of heat transfer applied
to the Earth system. We say it is cold in the winter because the
Northern Hemisphere does not receive as much solar radiation as
it does in the summer, so the temperature falls. We also have the
theory of the Sun centered Solar System, in which the Earth
rotates around the Sun, maintaining a constant angle of
inclination relative to the stars. This theory assures us that
given the passage of time, the Northern Hemisphere will receive
enough solar radiation to warm us to summer temperatures.

My question is: “Why do anti-evolutionists want to
demean the glorious Theory of Evolution by attempting to compare
it with a mere fact?” The Theory of Evolution is much more
than a fact, and I am surprised more people don’t recognize
it.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

Thank you for your
honest and forth right disclosure of some of the Creationists who
claim to be scientists. I was totally unaware of their real
credentials and background. I have been very supportive of the
creationist investigations and now will carefully check out each
person prior to reading their material. I have a B.S. degree in
Biology from California Poly University, Pomona Calif. 1968 and a
Master of Theology from Dallas Theological Seminary 1971.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

DEBATE, ANYONE?

Dr. Jay L. Wile, a Ph.D. graduate in nuclear chemistry from
the University of Rochester, has offered to debate anyone over
the accuracy of radiometric dating (including radiocarbon
dating). Dr. Wile argues that RADIOMETRIC DATING IS UNRELIABLE,
and that the earth is considerably younger than billions of years
old.

NO SCIENTIST HAS YET ACCEPTED THE OFFER TO DEBATE DR.
WILE.

Professors and scientists from Cornell University, Syracuse
University, University at Buffalo, Monroe Community College,
Buffalo State College, Binghampton University, University of
Rochester, Rochester Institute of Technology, and Ithaca College
were invited to debate Dr. Wile, but no one has accepted.

If anyone knows of any Ph.D. scientist who would be willing to
debate Dr. Wile, please email me.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

There are several
scientific journals that cover issues of radiometric dating. Has
Dr. Wile submitted his scientific findings to them? If not, then
it is untrue that no scientist will debate him; rather, he is the
one who refuses to debate in the appropriate forum. If he has
repeatedly submitted and been rejected, we would be interested to
see what he submitted and the reasons for rejection.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

Regarding the
alleged global flood. On top of a hill east of Missoula, MT you
can find ripple marked mudstones in situ and look down on the
highest Lake Missoula shoreline. I would love to see that
explained by the Young Earth people.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

Q.1. there is not
reason to believe in evolution. the THEORY of evolution is and
always has been false and that is proven by the bible. archology
was founded onproving the bible wrong, yet everything that
archologist have found have continued to do the oppisite and has
always proven the bible correct.

Q.1a. i believe that extinctions have happened in the history
of the earth and that all the dinosaurs were probably dead when
the ark was used. but again the bible has never been proven
incorrect.

Q.1b. honestly i dont think that you can do both. many people
think of Christianity as a religion but in actuallity it is a
lifestyle. if you are living as a Christian lifestyle and tell
people that you believe in evolution then you are not a true
Christian. true Christians understand and believe that God
CREATED the earth. therefore you cannot be a strong Christian and
believe in evolution.

Q1c. and Q1d. i'm 16 and to tell you the truth i think that
there are a lot more old creationists and evotulionists because
thats the way they were raised and were told and thought. i think
that a lot of young people believe in the THEORY of evolution
because the teaching of God and CREATION have been thrown out of
schools in the U.S.

Q1e. i dont think that science will hurt creationism because
the sciences that are being found are continually providing
evidence that the bible is true.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

About a month ago,
I used Ernst Mayr's book 'What Evolution Is' to gather material
for an explanation of evolution in my church. I included a copy
of Haeckel's embryological drawings in my presentation, and
supplemented that with the statement 'ontogeny recapitulates
phylogeny'. Shortly before my presentation, I learned of
Haeckel's error in the student version of 'The Case for a
Creator' by Lee Strobel.

This was naturally frustrating. I had learned of Mayr's 'What
Evolution Is' at an evolution vs. creation forum, where it was
cited as an undergraduate text on evolution by one of the forum's
purported biologists. In my youthful naivete, I thought I could
rely upon Mayr and that biologist for sound reference.

This one error, of including a universally discredited
drawing, damaged my presentation and damages the integrity of
Mayr's 'What Evolution Is'. It's hard enough to be a high school
student advocating evolution among somewhat fundamentally
Christian friends, all in the setting of a church. It's almost
futile to persuade Christians (who, let's face it, practically
all reject naturalistic evolution) with arguments that even
peripherally include falsified evidences like Haeckel's
drawings.

I do not understand why Haeckel's drawings enjoy the posterity
rightfully denied to other falsified articles of evidence. While
paleontological shams like Nebraska Man are swiftly expunged from
the scientific canon upon their falsification, Haeckel's drawings
remain popular. In addition to my obervation in 'What Evolution
Is', I clearly recall my sophomore-year biology teacher saying
"ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," and have heard anecdotes from
other high school students about how Haeckel's drawings are
included in their curriculum.

If such things have been discarded by academia, why do they
still exist in secondary, and, apparently, post-secondary
curriculum? Science publishers and educators alike should stop
using false arguments to buttress evolution. Doing so gives
Jonathan Wells and company an invitation to attack that much
larger a target.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

The interesting
thing about antievolutionary pique with respect to Ernst Haeckel
is how little attention gets paid to what the facts of embryology
show. Fact: Haeckel did fudge figures concerning the extent of
similarity between different vertebrates early in development.
Fact: Haeckel's figures on this topic improved over time. Fact:
Other illustrators also compared early embryological development
in various vertebrates, showing broad similarities without
committing "fraud". Fact: Evolutionists figured out that there
was a problem with Haeckel's early illustrations. Fact: Modern
researchers have also illustrated early embrylogical similarity
across many vertebrates using photography. The similarities are
there and real.

While Mayr's hardcover edition in 2001 does not note the
specific problems of Haeckel's early figures, his 2002 paperback
edition does indicate that there is a problem, though Mayr
mistakes another known problem in Haeckel's illustrations for the
one that applies to this specific figure. The caption under the
Haeckel figure (Fig. 2.8 on page 28) states that Haeckel had
fraudulently used dog embryos in place of human embryos. Mayr
discusses Haeckel's dictum of "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"
and points out that embryos do not pass through the adult stages
of ancestral forms, but that certain structures are retained in
development as being necessary to embryonic organization. This
passage from Mayr informs the reader that modern embryological
understanding of the causes of early embryological similarities
in vertebrates differs significantly from both Von Baer and
Haeckel.

When one picks up a book that gives a historical treatment of
a field, one must expect that ideas that have been shown false
will, quite appropriately, be mentioned and discussed. This
usually results in the reader becoming better informed not only
about the current thinking in a field, but also having an
understanding of the process of science and its demonstration of
the falseness of certain concepts.

While Strobel's book apparently passes on the information that
Haeckel fudged his early figures, it apparently is less
forthcoming about the broad result that holds whether Haeckel was
inaccurate at the outset or not. Nor did Strobel do the work that
demonstrated that there were problems in Haeckel's early figures.
Strobel and other antievolutionists rely upon the evolutionists
to figure out technical stuff like that. All the
antievolutionists seem to be good for in this regard is to
shrilly repeat their selective take on the critique made by real
biologists. In doing so, the big picture can be easily overlooked
by those who rely on antievolutionists as a source of
information. Antievolutionists are, in this view, like malicious
gossips who do nothing of worth on their own, but rather cast
what information they hear in the most damaging possible terms.
Their aim is not to inform, but to proselytize.

From:

Troy Britain

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

I would like to
add some detail to Mayr's apparent confusion regarding the
accusations against Haeckel. To start let's look at the exact
statement that Mayr makes in the caption to the embryo
illustrations in the paperback edition of his book:

Haeckel's figure of 1870 showing the similarity of the
development of human embryos to three comparable stages in 7
other kinds of vertebrates. Haeckel had fraudulently substituted
dog embryos for the human ones, but they were so similar to
humans that these (if available) would have made the same
point.

The first problem with Mayr's statement is that Haeckel's
comparative illustration of seven different types of vertebrates
first appeared in his book Anthropogeny which was not
published until 1874.

It appears as if Mayr confused attacks against the comparative
embryo illustrations in Haeckel's Anthropogeny (or The
Evolution of Man) with those made against a different set of
comparative illustrations in his earlier (1868) book
Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (or The
History of Creation).

In The History of Creation Haeckel included two
plates (II & III) which compares tortoise, chicken, dog,
and human embryos at two different points of development (4 and 6
weeks).

Many of Haeckel's numerous critics attacked these
illustrations as being misleadingly inaccurate, and accused him
of inappropriately altering them when he had copied them from
illustrations done by other researchers.

For example one of Haeckel's archenemies, Wilhelm His, Sr.
(the founder of experimental embryology), claimed that Haeckel
had (
among other things) added several millimeters to the head of
the dog embryo and reduced the head of the human embryo to a
similar extent when compared to the supposed original
illustrations. Haeckel did this in order to, it has been argued,
to make them more alike than they really are and thereby
manufacture false evidence for evolution in general and Haeckel's
theories (recapitulation) in particular.

The fact that the sources of these criticisms were avowed
enemies of Haeckel should have been seen as a warning to not
accept them without question. However they were accepted,
eagerly, by creationists (who
use them to this day) as well as by contemporary experimental
embryologists who wished to demonize the work of their more
morphologically minded colleagues who Haeckel epitomized.

Thus because of a rare confluence of agendas between
creationists and part of the scientific community (experimental
embryologists), these accusations have been passed down
uncritically (often mixed up together), and become part of the
general milieu.

It has become part of the "common knowledge" that Haeckel was
unrepentant and frequent forger and because of this common
knowledge few bother to investigate the details of the
accusations and whether any particular accusation against him is
true, and if they are true, to what extent.

This is how we end up with Ernst Mayr "knowing" that Haeckel
did something wrong but not really knowing precisely what it
was.

This is great such
a wealth of information to debunk a creationist. Recently, a
creationist posted a creationist thread in my oft-frequented
forum. I could not stand reading his posts, ire filled me as I
knew each of his statements were untrue based on my geology
background. As for the biological and evolution theories, I had
no leg to stand on. I came to this site and 'lo and behold' when
I searched to refute his posts this sites' 'claims (of
creationists)' were verbatim the drivel he spewed. This site
should be recommended to teachers of science everywhere, when the
dark aged creationists pound their bibles to tell a school
district to insert creationism into their classes.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

Thank you. Nearly
everything you hear from creationists will be verbatim from one
"standard" source or another. We try to cover them here, and in
particular in the Quote
Mine Project which tries to find the originals of the most
commonly used misquotes and document what they really
mean. Enjoy.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

The quote from St.
Augustine in Troy Britain's feedback response in January was so
very apposite, and a salutary slap on the wrist for ignorant
defenders of untenable positions. But could you please tell us
exactly where it is to be found in Augustine's writings?

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

The idea of
feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being
actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in
concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic
who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased
proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing
of evidence have been among the first casualties in their
program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific
hoaxes of our age---the paleontological equivalent of cold
fusion. If Sloan’s article is not the crescendo of this
fantasia, it is difficult to imagine to what heights it can next
be taken. .. Storrs L. Olson, Smithsonian.. How many more hoaxs
do we have to endure? Evolutionists can't even agree on what to
disagree on, what a mess.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

It's rather
mind-boggling that people can still deny in their minds the
existence of feathered dinosaurs. You can walk into any one of
many Natural History museums all over the world and see one
for yourself! It's a tad difficult to keep a hoax going when
a few million people have all the data neccessary to refute it.

Darren also mistakes disagreement in science for a crisis.
Disagreement is what makes science interesting. It's the sign of
a vibrant, growing field. But it's amusing that Darren speaks of
some vast conspiracy of white-coated evolutionists bent no doubt
on collecting ever higher admission fees from museums- and then
does a turnabout and complains scientists cannot agree on
anything. Which is it?

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

I thought that you
guys/girls at Talk Origins would like to know that Creationists
are making a
rebuttal to your Creationist Claim List. Just thought you
might be interested in viewing their "response.:

Dear Person, your
site may be devoted to mainstream science, but majority does not
determine truth. You are also direspectful in calling
christainity a myth (one of your comments said it should be
taught as a myth). Also, a great number of your articles are
already on arguments that creationists dicourage. See AiGs
argurement creationists should not use. You also refute sources,
mainly kent hovine, who is also discouraged by creationists. mabe
you should refute articles such as true origins brutal refute of
NGs "was Darwin Wrong article" Diffute our actual arguements, and
stop cherry picking the bad ones

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

I greatly
appreciate insights gained from your website. Somewhere there I
read about CWACK, Christians Who Aren't Creationist Kooks. I am
one. I dreamed up another acronym that might fit many of your
readers including me: EWAAK, Evolutionists Who Aren't Atheist
Kooks. So now you know where I stand, may I mention Dr. John
Haught (a Christian Theology professor) & two of his recent
books: 1.God After Darwin & 2.Deeper Than Darwin. He does not
stoop to mention the above mentioned cutesy acronyms. He does
however grease the skids to one's use of said acronyms to express
one's standing on the evolution/creation debate. He also eased my
concerns about Christian exclusivity, & Theodicy.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

This is quite an
interesting site; the comprehensiveness of the section directly
responding to particular creationist objections was especially
impressive. I was surprised at how comprehensive it actually was;
it referenced a recent poorly-written opinion article in the
University of Cincinnati's newspaper The Newsrecord (2/14/05)
purporting Huxley and Darwin to be racists! I'm glad someone else
out there is doing their homework. -DB

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

There is an
article recently published online "The modern theory of
biological evolution: an expanded synthesis" http://www.uni-kassel.de/fb19/plantphysiology/niklas.pdf
that claims existence of intermediate forms linking major groups
of vertebrates. What can you say about these
"intermediates"?

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

In January's
Feedback, Mark Borders said:

"I can read evolutionary theories (or facts as you like to
call them) till my eyes cross and it will never convince me of
it."

Such a statement is emblematic of a closed mind and also tends
to bring Christianity itself into ridicule as St. Augustine
observed:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the
earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world....Now,
it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a
Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture,
talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to
prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up
vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn."

If one is going to discuss science, whether to defend or
disprove, it is incumbent on that individual to at least try to
both understand the concepts being discussed, and obtain accurate
information from a multiplicity of sources (rather than from one
narrow one).

Retreat into arguments from incredulity or refusal to engage
in discussing the intrinsic science of the topic is only
injurious ones personal credulilty and ultimately, their
cause.

Finally, as a Christian myself I find it dissapointing that
self-styled Christians like Mark Borders slip into base derision.
This is neither a Christian act nor a sound replacement for
cogent, logical argument & knowledge of a subject.

My hat is off to those of you from Talk.Origins who exhibit
such patience & civility in the face of continuous
disparagement and condescension.